|From:||Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: Ryu floating point output patch|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Obviously I'll fix the warning, but how strict do you want to be
>> about the rest of the code?
Tom> Well, given that we're now requiring C99 compilers, you'd think
Tom> that assuming stdbool semantics would be all right. The problem on
Tom> prairiedog and locust (which seem to be the only complainants) is
Tom> that stdbool provides a _Bool type that has size 4, so c.h decides
Tom> not to use stdbool:
Yes, this was the cause of the earlier regression test failures that
were fixed by da6520be7; I realized exactly what was going on after
writing that commit message (otherwise I'd have been more explicit).
Tom> typedef char bool;
Tom> I believe that we could suppress these warnings by changing that
Tom> last to be
Tom> typedef unsigned char bool;
*squint* I _think_, going through the integer promotion rules, that that
should be safe.
|Next Message||Andrew Gierth||2019-02-17 23:15:42||Re: Ryu floating point output patch|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-02-17 23:04:22||Re: Ryu floating point output patch|